Saturday, December 19, 2015

Free Jennifer Fichter!

A case has been brought to my attention which illustrates the depths of insanity of the American justice system and feminist sex-hostility. The female sex offender charade, which was invented by feminists in the second half of the 20th century AD, is the most irrational of all human endeavors, and the case of Jennifer Fichter is at the cutting edge of this madness. This disturbing case makes my blood boil more than ever before with the hormones of hate and aggression against the state and the feminist ideologues responsible for this kind of injustice. These hate hormones give rise to very unpleasant and unhealthy physical effects that make it difficult to write about the subject, but I pulled myself together over the weekend and wrote this essay because the case is so egregious that it cannot be ignored. Jennifer Fichter is a teacher from Florida who has been sentenced to 22 years in prison for sex with 17-year-old boys. If this travesty does not make you want to fight back against the state, then you are a monster.

Are Americans really so primitive in their heads and indoctrinated by feminism that they actually believe there is a victim in this case, or is there something else going on? Whatever the purpose of this sort of prosecution may be, it has clearly nothing whatsoever to do with justice. It is pure, unadulterated insanity -- a manifestation of irrational sexual taboos and nothing else. Or just an excuse to lock people up. Even Americans, weaned as they are on feminist anti-sex hysteria, are not quite so brainwashed that the average person really buys into this charade, which is why there is a Facebook campaign to free Jennifer Fichter. But as noted in my last blog post, Facebook is so evil that Jennifer will be banned from using it after she gets released, so it is a bad platform to conduct activism on. If she had merely been a murderer or committed some other crime unencumbered by sexual taboos, she would have been free to use Facebook, but it is their policy to exclude even victimless sex offenders. Still, as long as we can get our message out to more people while also warning them about the bizarre moral depravity of Facebook, I am all for doing so, so please join the group if you are on Facebook.

The entire notion that women can be sex offenders is based on fundamental ignorance about human sexuality. Science and common sense both tell us that sex is a female resource, and every aspect of our lives outside the justice system and feminist theory still conforms to this fact, but astonishingly, this obvious truth is successfully denied by the law and its enforcers. It all got started as willful ignorance when feminists denied sex differences in order to achieve certain ends, and then the mythology of gender equality took on a life of its own in feeble and evil minds, begetting ever more absurd manifestations, such as this one in the justice system. Feminists said women are equal in order to get them into desirable positions, and then gullible fools internalized this claim and took it as a general rule, applying it to situations where it is neither good for women nor compatible with human nature. Thus a venal tactic became institutionalized as a lie which went on to bear monstrous fruits. While it is true that some women can perform most jobs as well as a man, it is absurd to think that women's sexual acts are equally harmful as a man's. Yet this is literally what the justice system has been convinced of thanks to feminism. In Jennifer Fichter's case, the acts (consensual relationship with 17-year-olds) would not be harmful even if they were committed by a man, so it is doubly absurd. It takes a very special kind of dimwit to take the female sex offender charade seriously, one who has had all common sense oversocialized out of her (and yes, believers are mostly female, with men being far less gullible because of course we know from personal experience that female sexuality is something we want rather than fear). Prosecutors don't care, since their careers grow in proportion to the damage they inflict on people. They never pause to consider if a law makes sense or conforms to the most basic moral standards, since their jobs depend on not comprehending common sense, or if they do understand it, they are so evil that they don't care. But what about the general public? How can you stand for this? Why aren't more Americans fighting back against hateful feminist sex laws even when they produce so bizarre results?

I know that Jennifer will not actually serve 22 years, because the scumbags running the system will lose their power in the coming deflationary collapse. It will be impossible to feed and guard her for anywhere near that long. With Brent crude now at $36 a barrel and WTI at $34, and depletion of natural resources being the principal force behind this deflationary trend, it is only a matter of a short time before prison guards will starve to death. Those who make a living by hurting others and produce nothing of value will find themselves most superfluous when business as usual ends. One year ago, Gail Tverberg predicted $20 oil by early 2016 and the collapse of civilization shortly thereafter, and it looks like she will be right. This is a Pyrrhic victory because nearly all our lives are ending in the deflationary collapse, but at least it will put an end to the problem of feminist sex-hostility. It remains to be seen how long a collapsing civilization will prioritize its war on sexuality, and for all I know this will be one of the last things to go, but no matter how hard they try, nothing as wasteful as the American prison system can be maintained for long. Prosecuting victimless sex crimes provides zero benefit except to perpetuate hatred, at a huge expense, so why prioritize it? Humans are not rational, and this sort of injustice may well continue till the bitter end, even thought the end is likely only months away at this point and one would think the powers that be had better things to do with their remaining resources than locking up women for being nice to boys. Men's rights activism (which is really sex-positive activism and good for women too, as this case shows) is therefore relevant as long as industrial civilization persists, and we should think of ways to hurt the state as much as we are able to.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. Resistance is therefore best accomplished by refusing to internalize the norms of the oppressors. Please take this message to heart. Don't internalize feminist sexual taboos, like I have not done, and you will be the kind of beast that the authorities cannot contain, the kind of person they will hate as much as I hate them. Or if you have already internalized these odious sexual taboos, deprogram yourself and get this sick morality out of your system. The feminist war against sexuality cannot be successful without our cooperation, and I for one am refusing to cooperate. Yes, this is a perilous course to take, but the moral gratification of looking down on our oppressors with a righteous heart makes it worth it. My heart is seething with hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement, and so they have correctly identified me as an enemy more malevolent than any other, because my mind refuses to serve the oppressors. Sadly, most actual sex offenders don't rise to my level of resistance, but instead participate in their own persecution by tacitly or even explicitly supporting the norms by which they are oppressed (even Jennifer reportedly groveled and pled for forgiveness in deference to the feminist sex laws in court as if she had really done something wrong, but hopefully that wasn't sincere). Very few convicted sex offenders will tell you there is anything wrong with the laws they got convicted of violating, but my attitude is profoundly different even though I have never even been accused of a sex crime. I am no simple criminal, but an activist against sexual oppression, which is far more dangerous for the state. My blog is an effort of resistance against sexual taboos from A to Z, only interrupted by some forays into peak oil. The authorities tried to have me imprisoned because these are dangerous ideas which directly challenge their authority. In fact, I challenge the very foundation of their power, which is the norms internalized in the populace, without which the police state couldn't last a day. If people come to see the police as their oppressors, like I already do, our oppressors will not have access to enough violence to remain in power. My mission in life is to incite hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement, so that they will feel what it is like to govern a populace which hates their guts and sincerely wish them the worst. Only then can we make progress against the feminist war on sexuality.

Anyone who sees jennifer as a monster and treats her as such deserves the worst thing that could happen to a human. I wanted to say that they need to die but quick death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person a slow painful one would be better. I don't care about fundamentalist cult brainwashing or being raised to percieve as such nor do I give a damn about propaganda and parental intuitions and instincts or social pressure nor am I concerned about difficulty to resist those things when they are enabled by society and given privileged place. If these are excuses let's excuse ISIS.

Perhaps judge Glenn Shelby believes he is administering justice, but that is indeed no excuse. It merely puts him in the same category as other zealots who are convinced by a poisonous and destructive ideology. Many atrocities are committed by people who believe they are doing the right thing, but we still have to treat them like the vermin and scum of the earth that they objectively are.

The legal profession is especially susceptible to toxic ideologies because they spend many years in school unlearning common sense and human decency (this is a good example of what I call oversocialization) and replacing it with the law, which in turn gets corrupted by feminists and other hateful lobbyists. So it is not surprising that a judge is one of the most inhuman characters one can ever encounter.

Jennifer Fichter is not a political activist, she was an English teacher and is a victim of an insane law and sick, psychopathic judge. So asking "what would SHE do" about this or that is asking the wrong question, to put it charitably.

A person in a particular unjust legal position stands for everyone in the same position. What helps one helps the rest; what harms one harms the rest. If social activists are going to scrutinize everyone they are trying to help for evidence of some kind of ideological worthiness, they will not get very far.

The answer to your last question is simple: it is, "Not doing so identifies you as a misogynist, and not merely an anti-feminist."

I don't know Ms. Fichter's views on anything, but I suspect she's among the 95% of both sexes who do not walk around every day thinking about feminism--either pro or con.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that she needs to make herself worthy of support by holding any particular views. She could be a feminist for all I care, and I would still support her. No one deserves 22 years in prison for consensual sex, even if they believe they do. Perhaps the system has managed to brainwash her into thinking she is an offender, or will by the time they are through with her, and that is just sad, not something I blame her for.

Not that it matters, but I am also guessing she was more or less apolitical like most people, without any strong opinions about the feminist sex laws. All she was doing was going about her life, doing normal, nice things that no one should need to ponder the criminality of in a sane world, and then it came as a shock that society could be so cruel. Her pleading for forgiveness even sort of indicates that she knew it was a bogus crime, because it's rare for real criminals to do that and if the judge wasn't a psycho, it should have actually worked in this case. If the judge were human at all, he would not have sent her to prison even if the law demands it, and certainly not for that long. But society's insanity doesn't go away because its victims plead for fairness. It is political activists like us who have the work cut out for us to set things right, and while it is nice if the victims also get politicized and engage in activism, that is by no means required of them.

If we don't help her, who will? Feminists are happy to apply the same laws to women, because feminism is more about sex-hostility in general than giving women special benefits. Feminism is a hate movement against sexuality, first and foremost, and they hate female sexuality almost as much as they hate male sexuality. Just look at how feminists treat prostitutes, for example. Oppression of sexuality is always their first priority, and it was feminists themselves who invented gender-neutral sex laws. Women being sentenced to draconian punishments for victimless sex crimes is now so common that anyone who thought feminists would quit persecuting sexuality once the same laws hurt women have been proven wrong.

Perhaps Jennifer Fichter would have cared nothing about helping a man in a similar predicament. But that shouldn't stop us from supporting her, because what happens to her is still wrong and no one deserves to be in prison just for their opinions. Tyranny must be consistently opposed, in my opinion, and not just when it happens to sympathetic people. To break the cycle of oppression, we have to set the example that we don't tolerate this sort of persecution under any circumstances. Feminists already proved that they really mean it when they want equal injustice for all. Now let us fight for equal justice instead. And by equal I mean adjusted for sex differences, which means the concept of female sex offenders should be almost entirely eliminated, but this case is so flagrantly unjust that the sex of the "offender" doesn't even matter. 17-year-olds are able to consent to sex, period, and anybody who disagrees with that is a scumbag whose guts I hate and whom I will maliciously oppose to the best extent of my ability from having their way.

"OK - I do not see this woman as a monster - BUT - I am forced to ask myself a question - would Jennifer Fichter be asking for leniency for a MAN in the same predicament as her?"

Absolutely right Scarecrow. Wasting tears on an individual who would likely happily see you burn if you were in her position isn't 'social activism' but rather, in terms of evolutionary 'Game theory', an example of being a moral sucker. Most women support age of consent laws and most men in turn support age of consent laws because most women present the idea that, as adults, they 'know' that they would have regretted (or did regret) sex as a young girl. If women were going round saying that they would have loved to have sex with an older guy at 13,14 (as most men are honest enough to admit to about their boyhood regarding sex with older females) and that the age of consent should be lowered, do you really think men would have such hatred for male 'sex predators'? I have no idea what Jennifer Ficther thinks about sex between older men and teenage girls, but women in general have responsibility for spreading the lie that girls are harmed by such sexual relationships. (btw, women and 'feminists' are happy to persecute female 'paedophiles' because relatively few women are attracted to male teens, whereas nearly all men are attracted to female teens. In other words, the average woman does not find underage boys sexually tempting but she sure as does fear or feel jealousy at her boyfriend or husband lusting after an underage teen. Age of consent laws benefit women and harm men. Feminists and women see Jeniffer Ficther as collateral damage in the battle to push up the price of sex - something which benefits nearly all women.)

"A person in a particular unjust legal position stands for everyone in the same position."

That's not what Eivind believes clearly as he differentiates women from men in the same legal position as this by reference to theories that hold that women are 'sexual resources' i.e. women by default cannot be sex offenders.

Indeed, regarding social activism and changing these obscene laws the danger I feel is that Eivind, with his focus on the supposed particular injustice behind the jailing of female sex offenders, validates the widely held social view that 'it's different' when it comes to women and sex with boys. In other words, he validates the idea that there is some intrinsic evil in older male relationships with young girls. In fact, in a society in which there is no value held in female virginity, there is widespread easy and safe contraception, abortion on demand, acceptance of pre-marital sex, and a welfare state that fully supports single teenage mothers, there should be no moral or legal difference between older male/younger female and older female/younger male relationships.

The MHRA manginas go to one extreme in forcing the sex offender label upon such women as this, in the name of 'equality' (or rather equality of injustice), Eivind goes to the other extreme perhaps (just my opinion - and I have a lot of respect for Eivind).

No, I am not particularly religious. Why do you ask? I don't really have strong opinions on religion, because I haven't seriously considered it. There are so many more important issues. Feminism is clearly a much more pernicious influence on our culture, for example. And at this point it looks like the Christians have adopted feminist sex-hostility wholesale and formed an alliance with feminists to institute the current hateful regime.

I've been aiming to get Muslims on board with the Men's Movement, but som far I am failing. Despite its shortcomings, Islam has a much healthier sexual morality than feminist Christians. They are not so stuck-up about age of consent and haven't picked up the female sex offender charade. It's hard to imagine someone like Jennifer Fichter being persecuted in a Muslim country, and if she was, at least they wouldn't sink to the idiotic level of pretending she was "victimizing" the boys. It is much more honest to have a morality where certain acts are simply considered immoral because God says so, not because of some pseudoscientific victimology. Nothing pisses me off more than the creation of fake victims, and nothing is more absurd than pretending boys who get lucky with older women are victims. No Islamist has ever done anything as offensive as that crap yet, to my knowlede, so feminists and their enforcers remain the most execrable monsters on the face of the earth.

No, I am not "validating the idea that there is some intrinsic evil in older male relationships with young girls"!

There is certainly not any evil in such relationships that merits criminalization. I refuse to lie and claim that there is no difference at all, however, because clearly there is. Boys who have sex with older women, such as the fake "victims" of Jennifer Fichter, are truly lucky, whereas the same is not true for girls who have sex with men. It is simply a fact of nature that girls have sexual value that boys don't have, and when girls give up sex to a man, the man is obviously getting something valuable and the girl is losing SOMETHING -- a little bit of her sexual market value, if nothing else, though it remains immense even if she is a slut. It is understandable that her parents are upset on some level if they don't approve of her mate, because a nubile girl's sexuality is such a divine gift that they can't help obsessing over it -- no one can! Her sex partner's age has very little to do with it, however, and I vehemently condemn any law against men of any age having sexual relations with teenage girls, as surely as I condemn all laws against relationships between young boys and older women.

The only place where the law should differentiate men from women is with regard to real sex crimes that I actually agree with criminalizing -- i.e., real rape, properly defined. I do not believe it makes sense to apply rape law to women at all, for fundamental biological reasons. This is almost entirely an academic issue, of course, since even in the most feminist countries women are rarely ever accused of actual forcible rape, but it is nonetheless an important principle and in today's confused climate it needs to be articulated. Women can commit all sorts of violence, and they should not get a free pass on any of it except rape. In my opinion, women by definition cannot be rapists, and by that I mean that the sexual aspect, and ONLY the sexual aspect, is irrelevant when the perpetrator of violence is female, as I have explained at length in the comments to this blog post:

"... it is absurd to think that women's sexual acts are equally harmful as a man's". I object to the word "harmful" here because it is hot helpful for men's rights to aknowledge any degree of noxiousness to male sexuality. BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if this judge was not secretly envious of the "plight" of those "boys". And that would be the reason he passed such an absurd sentence. Mankind is now a very sick beas whichever way you look.

I'm sure this article will make your blood boil too. Witness the petty and heavy moralizing from the judge, as he seals off the process that will cost lots of tax-payer money and crush two young lives for at least many years:

Yes, that is another sad example of senseless violence perpetrated by the state against harmless individuals on the pretext of fake sexual abuse and pretend-rape. Is the judge really so vacuous that he fails to understand that it is criminalization itself which is causing the harm? Can it be any clearer than this?

"The court had heard how Van de Velde’s child victim had been consumed with guilt in the wake of his arrest and felt responsible for him being in custody."

Or perhaps the judge is just plain sadistic evil and actually knows better. Either way I hate his guts and wish more men would wake up and embrace the same hatred so we could get revenge. You have to be an idiot to think a "child victim" is harmed by sex rather than the malicious feminist state in cases like this.

But they won't wake up, because the feminist war on sexuality has been a smashing success. Most people don't feel the slightest disgust towards these laws because they have been thoroughly brainwashed. When the law and the media label a loving consensual relationship as "rape," these imbeciles don't even understand how absurd it sounds. Most people are obsequious buffoons who blindly follow authority, and the normative power of the law is strong enough to make them internalize even the most hateful and destructive precepts.

We who are consumed with hatred against the system are sadly too few to make a difference any time soon. It is perhaps an impossible task altogether, because of the staggering stupidity of the unwashed hordes. Makes me really hate humanity and look forward to the collapse of industrial civilization. Mankind has infinite capacity for oppression and almost no ability to be reasonable, and all tools will serve our sex-hostile oppressors as long as they can be manufactured. A society with the surplus to persecute harmless sexuality is too prosperous for its own good anyway. The natural state is better than this, however brutish.

I've not read all the article, not read all the comments. I feel, as you do that the sex act is not symmetrical; we need to protect young girls from men MUCH more than we need to protect young men from women simply because of the nature of the penetrative act of sex, as well as the inferior role that we still give women in our still-not liberated society in the West.I am physically sickened by this case. It's a MAD sentence. I've just switched off a commentary on YouTube where the guy said she deserves it because she must have known she was breaking the law!?! Madness...And it's not the only one of its kind, either, just the insanest sentence. Hopefully she will be pardoned or her sentence reduced soon. I would like to see the sentencing judge thrown out of the legal profession, made to pay the abused Ms. Fichter compensation, and himself suffer public shame and ridicule (perhaps in the stocks for a few hours of having rotten tomatoes thrown at him) for his idiotic and cruel decision.

The sex act is asymmetrical not just because of the anatomical differences and women's role in society. These differences are just the tip of the iceberg. The most significant and profound difference is psychological, and it is a very predictable and stable result of evolution in any species where the sexes have an asymmetrical minimum parental investment. It comes down to female selectivity because they are necessarily the ones who have to bear the burden of pregnancy and lactation. There is simply no reason for boys to have evolved adaptations that make them feel protective of their sexuality with respect to women. They don't risk anything by copulating with older females. Or didn't in our ancestral environment -- the recent invention of state-enforced child support is too recent to have affected our nature. On the contrary, underage boys who have sex with women are LUCKY, period, in every relevant way. There is a huge culturally universal male sex deficit, and these boys which feminists call "victims" are in fact some lucky exceptions. Biologically they obviously get a free reproductive opportunity, psychologically they feel lucky, they become the envy of their peers as well as adult men like me who wish that had happened to us, and our culture understands that they are lucky in every way except the odious workings of the sick feminist justice system.

Boys do not have any "innocence" to protect. On the contrary, male virginity is a stigma (I had to pay to get mine removed) and males feel better and prouder for every conquest. There is no such thing as a "ruined" man. Though one would hope these words are antiquated in our society, the basic difference remains and is still manifested in many sorts of ways despite all feminist efforts to pretend there are no differences. Prosecuting women for sex crimes is profoundly unjust and goes against our deep instincts.

Anyone claiming it is equal is either a hateful feminist scumbag or scientifically illiterate and needs to read up on evolutionary psychology.

The entire female sex offender charade is a case of the emperor's new clothes. Every normal person can see that it is completely baseless, made up entirely out of thin air, but the authority of feminist ideology pretending that the sexes are equal is so strong that enough people go along with it to produce these kinds of convictions.

As to women being oppressed, this is indeed a good example, but note that the oppression stems from the fiction that the sexes are equal. If our culture could admit that men and women are different, then this sort of oppression would not exist. We need to restore the sensible position that female sexual offenses are de minimis at worst, and de minimis non curat lex.

Evo psych is confirmed every day in our lives. Particularly when it comes to sex differences in sexual mentality -- these differences are some of the most robust findings in all of science as well as obvious personal experience -- and nothing else can explain them. If these sex differences were culturally constructed, there would be exceptions, but there has not been a single society where sex were perceived as a male resource rather than a female one in all of history. Among all cultures everywhere, men want to be promiscuous and women want to be picky and no reasonable person acts as if women can be sex offenders. That entire charade is a feminist lie that no one actually behaves according to in their personal lives, but since feminists control the police and the courts, it is sometimes enforced. And this enforcement is always seen as bizarre and unfair, because once again, humans instinctively know that females can't commit real sex offenses, only victimless ones constructed by odious feminist ideology.

What we are talking about here is so basic, that's like saying we can't be sure that 2 + 2 = 4 because there are flaws in some modern mathematical proofs. The fact that sex is a female resource, something women have and men overwhelmingly want more of than they get, which makes female sex offenders a ludicrous concept, is the most salient of all facts of life. There is no exception to this in any culture anywhere.

It's called the male sex deficit, and this is what you need to disprove if you want us to take the concept of female sex offenders seriously:

Nationally representative interview surveys of sexual behaviour and attitudes proliferated around the globe from 1990 onwards as a result of the AIDS scare, yet are overlooked by sociologists. This article reviews findings from some 30 sex surveys around the world showing that large and substantively important differences between men and women in the centrality of sexuality, sexual desire, sexual behaviour and attitudes persist in the 21st century, long after the contraceptive and sexual revolutions of the 1960s. Women’s lesser sexual motivation and interest means that many heterosexual men experience a shortfall in desired sexual activity. A reversal of the sex ratio to a male surplus among prime-age adults and other trends suggest that the sexual deficit among men may increase. The male sexual deficit (or surplus male sexuality) helps to explain sexual harassment, sexual violence, rape, rising demand for commercial sexual services and other behaviours that are almost exclusively male.

Sexual strategies are a basic ingredient in evolution. They differ between the sexes in exactly the way evolutionary theory predicts, in humans just as in other species. To think that evolution has no input in the different sexual mentalities of men and women takes a giant leap of faith contrary to all the evidence. Of course, reality isn't politically correct, so feminists attempt to deny it, but every honest person can see it. Anyway, you don't even need evolutionary psychology to know that the concept of female sex offenders is nonsense. Common sense is enough. An in a case like this, nothing deserves to be criminal even when the perpetrator is a man.

It is really silly to ask for more proof of something with so overwhelming evidence. I suspect you don't apply the same standards to any other science. Gravity isn't proven either; we just have a lot of statistical evidence of objects falling towards the earth. So are you going to keep screaming that gravity is "unproven" until you have observed every possible object? These different standards of proof are merely due to political correctness.

So exactly who quit taking evolutionary psychology seriously? None of importance that I know of. The field is established now and I don't see any serious opposition from people who know what they are talking about.